turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Category talk:Soldiers of the American Civil War
I'd like people's opinion as to whether this category should be a catch-all for ACW, War of Secession and Second American Revolution, or should those be seperate categories? TR 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) :I'd make WoS and 2AR Soldiers subcategories of this one, perhaps. Turtle Fan 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) ::And we're ok with that many more categories for a given character? TR 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC) :::There certainly would be a lot of duplication from GotS since HT used historical names from the NC regiment for his Confederate soldiers in the book. ML4E 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ::::This is my concern. Robert E. Lee, for example, will fit into all three categories. TR 01:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :::::I don't see the problem. But if you want we could fold 2AR into ACW and keep WoS seperate. Turtle Fan 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Nah, let's keep 'em seperate. We'll just have lots of categories. TR 02:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :::That reminds me, I've come to agree with whomever recently suggested raising the bar for Articles With Many Categories now that we've got, well, many categories. Articles that fit into ten are a dime a dozen now, but articles that fit into, say, eighteen--Those are likely to become fodder for a de facto or de jure Important Articles category. Turtle Fan 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Ok, let's set it for 15 for now, see how that plays out. TR 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :::Oh, and now that ML4E mentions it, I don't think GotS contains a single named fictional soldier, with the exception of the Rivington Men. He (HT) was such a thorough researcher back then. Turtle Fan 02:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) ::::That's what I was trying to say, yes. In addition, the articles to date are for prominent soldiers of the war (e.g. generals). There are about a dozen more soldiers from the 47th North Carolina that were privates, corporals and sergeants that are not yet written about and who would be historical people but used fictitiously. I don't have a problem placing them in both categories if and when but I am raising it in case someone else does. ML4E 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC) :::::I doubt anyone will complain much. I instituted an arbitrary bright line to seperate the SAR and the WoS (basically GoTS characters go in the former and the ACW, 191 characters go in the latter along with ACW), as that was MY primary concern, but double categorizing is fine. TR 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::::I don't object. I had wondered about the usefulness of a category whose members are uniformly also represented in another category, but on further consideration, well, the wars are qualitatively different, aren't they? Turtle Fan 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Blue and Gray Any interest in splitting this into a Federals and Rebels dichotomy? Turtle Fan 02:57, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :I think something of the sort is worthwhile. My initial response is that we have a Confederates category. But FP is going to add a bunch of people, historical and fictional, who were Confederates only for the duration of the war, and even then in name only (e.g., the fictionals and NBF's staff). So having those people as Americans and as Confederate Soldiers of the ACW (rather than Americans, Confederates, Soldiers of the ACW) would be more accurate, anyway. TR 16:36, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::Yes. Also, Confederates includes lots of civilians, so sticking soldiers there doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing. Turtle Fan 17:19, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :::Would this be applicable to other civil wars? Soldiers of the Russian Civil War isn't a category (mainly due to lack of articles that fit at this point--actually, we should double check that), neither is Soldiers of the Chinese Civil War (not many articles, but again, we might re-check), but Soldiers of the Spanish Civil War seems likely to grow now. Is a Nationalist/Republican split something we should do? TR 19:06, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::Could be. Of course, if the Spanish Civil War category grows, it won't be the OTL cast, which is what we've got in this category. Not sure whether that matters. :::::It probably doesn't. I made the distinction in this category because of WoS and SAR, really. Since there is only one HT work that depicts a version of the SCW, I think confusion will be limited. TR 01:28, October 10, 2009 (UTC) ::::Chinese Civil War could probably support its own category as I run through the list in my mind. I'm less sure it could support two of them. Turtle Fan 20:31, October 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::I can say 3 for sure, Chiang Kai-Shek, Mao Tse-Tung, and Nieh Ho-Ting. Factions will not be supported. And with that small a number, I'd suggest waiting to see if the war gets more air time in HW2 before separating it out. TR 01:28, October 10, 2009 (UTC) ::::::Yes, HW2 might get us deeper into the Chinese Civil War. I suspect Pete McGill will get involved--He just has such a hard time sitting tight when exciting things are going on around him, doesn't he? Just has to get involved. Well, we can hope. ::::::We need to write a couple of other articles, actually. There's a scene in Second Contact where we meet Lin Biao and Chu Te. I've never heard of the latter and it seems that neither has Google. I wonder if he's ficticious. He's supposed to be a communist, anyway. ::::::Why would HT stick a ficticious Chinese communist in there among all the historicals? For good measure? If that were a concern, why not just toss in Zhou Enlai or Deng Xiaoping or someone else we've heard of? Would that be so bad? Turtle Fan 03:19, October 10, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Based on the Wade-Giles and the position, I bet Chu Te is Zhu De. TR 17:24, October 10, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Damn--Bet you're right. I'm a bit embarrassed to have missed it, but then I've never seen Zhu De referred to as Chu Te. Turtle Fan 20:42, October 10, 2009 (UTC) :::::::That probably brings up another point for consideration: Wade-Giles or pinyin? TR 17:26, October 10, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I tend to prefer pinyin myself but I'm inconsistent with it: Mao Tse-Tung instead of Zedong, Chiang Kai-Shek Jiang Jieshi, Kuomintang instead of Guomindang. Also, I don't know much about Chinese phenology but I do believe Wade-Giles tends to render names phonetically closer to their original. ::::::::And more to the point, HT uses Wade-Giles almost exclusively. Turtle Fan 20:42, October 10, 2009 (UTC)